Fork tests for yield-bearing pool swaps using ERC4626 buffers

[joaobrunoah]

Description

This PR is focused in the fork tests of ERC4626 buffers. The following points were tackled:

• Address of aTokens were changed in the Mainnet fork, to make sure we use a valid aToken (the old ones were not compliant with ERC4626, because deposit wasn't an exact_in operation);
• BatchRouter was fixed to make sure multiple calls to batch router in the same transaction are supported;
• A new Sepolia test was added to reproduce a scenario found by SDK team, where query and actual values of a yield-bearing pool batch swap weren't matching;
• New fork tests were created with unbalanced buffers, to make sure the vault primitive works as expected with real tokens and rounding issues;
• New fork tests were created to test queries and actual swaps of yield-bearing pool in different scenarios;
• A major bug was fixed in the vault primitive (amountGiven was modified and balances were not settling in some cases);
• Minor comment refactor.

Type of change

• [x] Bug fix
• [ ] New feature
• [ ] Breaking change
• [ ] Dependency changes
• [ ] Code refactor / cleanup
• [ ] Optimization: [ ] gas / [ ] bytecode
• [ ] Documentation or wording changes
• [ ] Other

Checklist:

• [x] The diff is legible and has no extraneous changes
• [x] Complex code has been commented, including external interfaces
• [x] Tests have 100% code coverage
• [x] The base branch is either main, or there's a description of how to merge

Issue Resolution

Closes #777 Closes #776 Closes #791

[EndymionJkb]

We're trying not to say "Boosted" anywhere in the code, but ERC4626Buffer or just ERC4626. File names, variables, comments, etc. Already addressed in #787 though.

[joaobrunoah]

We're trying not to say "Boosted" anywhere in the code, but ERC4626Buffer or just ERC4626. File names, variables, comments, etc.

Yep, I'm aware. I'm already changing the code, the new fork tests don't mention boosted, but yield-bearing pools.